Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
From: "Leslie Daigle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Following the note just sent about the proposed timeline for reviewing the RFC Editor contract this year, here is the STRAW proposal RFC Editor charter proposed by the IAB. It is a modest extension of the RFC Editor paragraph as found in RFC 2850 (the IAB Charter). The purpose of this straw proposal is to inform discussions scheduled for the GENAREA meeting at IETF65 in Dallas. After the Dallas meeting, the IAB will provide a more formal charter proposal. What would help me most, in commenting on this charter, is an understanding of how much editorial autonomy the IETF expects the RFC Editor function to exercise in document publication. I have recently participated in an exchange on/off the techspec mailing list that has convinced me that I do NOT understand this (or, at least, that other smart people who I respect understand it differently). I'm not even sure that I am hooked up well enough to ask more specific questions. Or is this question premature, pending "editorial review and approval processes, must be defined in IETF community consensus documents"? Thanks, Spencer STRAW RFC Editor Charter The RFC Editor executes editorial management for the publication of the "Request for Comment" (RFC) document series, which is the permanent document repository of the IETF community. The RFC series constitutes the archival publication channel for Internet Standards and for other contributions by the Internet research and engineering community. RFCs are available free of charge to anyone via the Internet. It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed by the RFC Editor. Policies, including those for defining publication tracks and their requirements, intellectual property rights, as well as editorial review and approval processes, must be defined in IETF community consensus documents before being put to the IAB for approval. Leslie Daigle. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
At 10:06 AM 17/03/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Following the note just sent about the proposed timeline for
reviewing the RFC Editor contract this year, here is the
STRAW proposal RFC Editor charter proposed by the IAB.
...
STRAW RFC Editor Charter
The RFC Editor executes editorial management for the publication of the
"Request for Comment" (RFC) document series, which is the permanent
document repository of the IETF community. The RFC series
constitutes the archival publication channel for Internet Standards
and for other contributions by the Internet research and engineering
community. RFCs are available free of charge to anyone via the
Internet. It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the
appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general
policy followed by the RFC Editor.
Policies, including those for defining publication tracks and
their requirements, intellectual property rights, as well as
editorial review and approval processes, must be defined in
IETF community consensus documents before being put to the IAB for
approval.
Leslie,
It is unclear from the above if the RFC Editor's charter specifically
includes the
actions of publication and repository management for RFC documents
("editorial management for the publication..." allows a variety of
interpretations
of the specifics of this role).
It may be useful for the IAB and the IAOC to consider whether the RFC
Editor's charter
is specifically limited to the editorial task of production of
publication-ready
documents, and to state such clearly in the charter (and thereby pass the
responsibility of publication and repository management to the IETF
Secretariat),
or whether to call out in this charter in clearer terms that the RFC
Editor is responsible
for publication and repository management in addition to editorial actions
relating
to document preparation.
I would personally advocate the IAB's adoption of a charter that explicitly
defined the
role of the RFC Editor as an editorial role responsible for the production
of publication-
ready documents in a specified set of document formats and fold the publication
and repository management tasks into the IETF Secretariat function.
regards,
Geoff Huston
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
I want to speak to one facet of comment that I believe is going to be a common thread: [Ran Atkinson wrote:] Similarly, it is a bug that the IETF process would govern the publication of non-IETF documents. The IETF process properly should govern how IETF generated documents should be handled for publication. However, the IETF processes ought not govern how IRTF, IAB, or other non-IETF documents are handled by the RFC Editor. TechSpec is working on the IETF requirements, specifically. The other "publication tracks" in the above is meant to be for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, . When the current IAB/IESG organisational structure was setup, it was a deliberate choice to have the RFC Editor under the IAB and not under the IESG -- because the RFC Editor's scope was (and is) much larger than the IETF or the IESG's scope. Requiring that all policies have to go through the IETF processes (which many IETF people consider badly wedged) for approval is a major and undesirable change, IMHO. The goal is to have a public means for defining, adjusting and agreeing to the requirements of those tracks.Better formulations for that welcomed! Leslie. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
Hi Leslie - It would be really helpful to understand what the RFC Editor thinks of this proposed charter. Have you run it by them and what was their reaction? It would be equally helpful to understand where the IAB/IAOC is going with this ... are there plans to rebid the contract to another organization? Are there problems with the current performance of the function that you're hoping to fix by the re-chartering? Regards, Carl ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
Carl -- did you get the other message (the one with the timeline)? Thanks, Leslie. Carl Malamud wrote: Hi Leslie - It would be really helpful to understand what the RFC Editor thinks of this proposed charter. Have you run it by them and what was their reaction? It would be equally helpful to understand where the IAB/IAOC is going with this ... are there plans to rebid the contract to another organization? Are there problems with the current performance of the function that you're hoping to fix by the re-chartering? Regards, Carl ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
> The other "publication tracks" in the above is meant to be > for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, . and 1 april RFCs? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
> Carl -- did you get the other message (the one with > the timeline)? Yes, I did. Not having been party to the discussions, I'm not quite sure what is going on. We did a sole source re-assignment of the IETF secretariat. As I said in my note, I'm curious about: 1. the opinion from the RFC-Editor about this, in particular the charter. 2. what the IAB/IAOC is thinking ... this could be a sole source reassignment or a simple renewal. I appreciate that a lot of thought obviously went into preparing your two notes, I'd just like to hear some of the background. Best regards, Carl ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
Carl, my impression as a bystander is that the IETF has decided that sole source contracts (where only one contractor is permitted to bid) are, in general, a Bad Idea. The Secretariat contract had very special circumstances, which caused it to be sole sourced, but I interpreted the words from Leslie's timeline: May 7 2006[IASA] Request for Vendor Expressions of Interest to mean a public request, where more than one organization is welcome to show interest. Continuity has value, but I think it is up to the IASA to determine how continuity is weighted against other factors. Harald (who has only public knowledge at this point) --On torsdag, mars 16, 2006 18:16:22 -0800 Carl Malamud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Carl -- did you get the other message (the one with the timeline)? Yes, I did. Not having been party to the discussions, I'm not quite sure what is going on. We did a sole source re-assignment of the IETF secretariat. As I said in my note, I'm curious about: 1. the opinion from the RFC-Editor about this, in particular the charter. 2. what the IAB/IAOC is thinking ... this could be a sole source reassignment or a simple renewal. I appreciate that a lot of thought obviously went into preparing your two notes, I'd just like to hear some of the background. Best regards, Carl ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
Spencer Dawkins wrote: From: "Leslie Daigle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Following the note just sent about the proposed timeline for reviewing the RFC Editor contract this year, here is the STRAW proposal RFC Editor charter proposed by the IAB. It is a modest extension of the RFC Editor paragraph as found in RFC 2850 (the IAB Charter). The purpose of this straw proposal is to inform discussions scheduled for the GENAREA meeting at IETF65 in Dallas. After the Dallas meeting, the IAB will provide a more formal charter proposal. What would help me most, in commenting on this charter, is an understanding of how much editorial autonomy the IETF expects the RFC Editor function to exercise in document publication. My personal answer is that this is for the IETF to decide and that is what the charter language allows. So we don't answer that question before establishing the charter. Now, I have opinions about what the IETF should decide in this area, but that isn't the question on the table. I have recently participated in an exchange on/off the techspec mailing list that has convinced me that I do NOT understand this (or, at least, that other smart people who I respect understand it differently). I'm not even sure that I am hooked up well enough to ask more specific questions. Or is this question premature, pending "editorial review and approval processes, must be defined in IETF community consensus documents"? I believe it's logically premature; of course we are debating some of that in techspec, because we need parallelism in the timeline. draft-irtf-rfcs-00.txt discusses another part of it. Brian Thanks, Spencer STRAW RFC Editor Charter The RFC Editor executes editorial management for the publication of the "Request for Comment" (RFC) document series, which is the permanent document repository of the IETF community. The RFC series constitutes the archival publication channel for Internet Standards and for other contributions by the Internet research and engineering community. RFCs are available free of charge to anyone via the Internet. It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed by the RFC Editor. Policies, including those for defining publication tracks and their requirements, intellectual property rights, as well as editorial review and approval processes, must be defined in IETF community consensus documents before being put to the IAB for approval. Leslie Daigle. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Carl, my impression as a bystander is that the IETF has decided that sole source contracts (where only one contractor is permitted to bid) are, in general, a Bad Idea. The Secretariat contract had very special circumstances, which caused it to be sole sourced, but I interpreted the words from Leslie's timeline: May 7 2006[IASA] Request for Vendor Expressions of Interest to mean a public request, where more than one organization is welcome to show interest. Continuity has value, but I think it is up to the IASA to determine how continuity is weighted against other factors. Harald (who has only public knowledge at this point) There isn't much secret knowledge... but as an IAOC member, I feel we've been told by the community to seek multiple proposals when possible and appropriate, and in any case to be as transparent as possible in the process. Brian --On torsdag, mars 16, 2006 18:16:22 -0800 Carl Malamud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Carl -- did you get the other message (the one with the timeline)? Yes, I did. Not having been party to the discussions, I'm not quite sure what is going on. We did a sole source re-assignment of the IETF secretariat. As I said in my note, I'm curious about: 1. the opinion from the RFC-Editor about this, in particular the charter. 2. what the IAB/IAOC is thinking ... this could be a sole source reassignment or a simple renewal. I appreciate that a lot of thought obviously went into preparing your two notes, I'd just like to hear some of the background. Best regards, Carl ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
Scott Bradner wrote: The other "publication tracks" in the above is meant to be for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, . and 1 april RFCs? I suggest we discuss that 15 days from now... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
Leslie Daigle wrote: I want to speak to one facet of comment that I believe is going to be a common thread: [Ran Atkinson wrote:] Similarly, it is a bug that the IETF process would govern the publication of non-IETF documents. The IETF process properly should govern how IETF generated documents should be handled for publication. However, the IETF processes ought not govern how IRTF, IAB, or other non-IETF documents are handled by the RFC Editor. TechSpec is working on the IETF requirements, specifically. The other "publication tracks" in the above is meant to be for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, . I think there are a couple of points to add here. 1. Since it's the IETF nomcom process that appoints the IAB, and the IAB that oversees the IRTF, it's a bit of a stretch to say that the IAB and IRTF aren't part of the IETF family. It would be very artificial to completely separate these discussions. They need to converge in the RFP anyway. 2. We have a specific segment on the independent submissions channel in the General Area open meeting in Dallas. I'm a defender of the existence of that channel, but that doesn't mean it is something that exists without being chartered, funded and accountable in some way. Brian When the current IAB/IESG organisational structure was setup, it was a deliberate choice to have the RFC Editor under the IAB and not under the IESG -- because the RFC Editor's scope was (and is) much larger than the IETF or the IESG's scope. Requiring that all policies have to go through the IETF processes (which many IETF people consider badly wedged) for approval is a major and undesirable change, IMHO. The goal is to have a public means for defining, adjusting and agreeing to the requirements of those tracks.Better formulations for that welcomed! Leslie. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:37:08 +0100, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott Bradner wrote: > >>The other "publication tracks" in the above is meant to be > >>for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, . > > > > > > and 1 april RFCs? > > I suggest we discuss that 15 days from now... > And if there's an April 1 RFC on restructuring and administrative activities, will anyone be able to tell what it is without looking at the date? --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
On 16 Mar 2006, at 18:06, Leslie Daigle wrote: Following the note just sent about the proposed timeline for reviewing the RFC Editor contract this year, here is the STRAW proposal RFC Editor charter proposed by the IAB. It is a modest extension of the RFC Editor paragraph as found in RFC 2850 (the IAB Charter). The purpose of this straw proposal is to inform discussions scheduled for the GENAREA meeting at IETF65 in Dallas. After the Dallas meeting, the IAB will provide a more formal charter proposal. STRAW RFC Editor Charter The RFC Editor executes editorial management for the publication of the "Request for Comment" (RFC) document series, which is the permanent document repository of the IETF community. It is a bug that the scope of the RFC Editor, which for decades has been the broader Internet community, has above been limited to just "the IETF community". For openers, the IRTF and IAB are not properly part of the IETF, though they are obviously related and co-operative. More broadly though, the RFC Editor has handled Internet documents that had nothing to do with the IETF for many years now. It would be a mistake to narrow the RFC Editor's scope as the above sentence appears to do. Proposed edit: s/of the IETF community/of the Internet community/ The RFC series constitutes the archival publication channel for Internet Standards and for other contributions by the Internet research and engineering community. RFCs are available free of charge to anyone via the Internet. It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed by the RFC Editor. Policies, including those for defining publication tracks and their requirements, intellectual property rights, as well as editorial review and approval processes, must be defined in IETF community consensus documents before being put to the IAB for approval. Similarly, it is a bug that the IETF process would govern the publication of non-IETF documents. The IETF process properly should govern how IETF generated documents should be handled for publication. However, the IETF processes ought not govern how IRTF, IAB, or other non-IETF documents are handled by the RFC Editor. When the current IAB/IESG organisational structure was setup, it was a deliberate choice to have the RFC Editor under the IAB and not under the IESG -- because the RFC Editor's scope was (and is) much larger than the IETF or the IESG's scope. Requiring that all policies have to go through the IETF processes (which many IETF people consider badly wedged) for approval is a major and undesirable change, IMHO. Yours, Ran [EMAIL PROTECTED] Disclaimer: Employed by, but not speaking for, Extreme Networks. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
On 17 Mar 2006, at 04:47, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Leslie Daigle wrote: I want to speak to one facet of comment that I believe is going to be a common thread: [Ran Atkinson wrote:] Similarly, it is a bug that the IETF process would govern the publication of non-IETF documents. The IETF process properly should govern how IETF generated documents should be handled for publication. However, the IETF processes ought not govern how IRTF, IAB, or other non-IETF documents are handled by the RFC Editor. TechSpec is working on the IETF requirements, specifically. The other "publication tracks" in the above is meant to be for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, . I think there are a couple of points to add here. 1. Since it's the IETF nomcom process that appoints the IAB, and the IAB that oversees the IRTF, it's a bit of a stretch to say that the IAB and IRTF aren't part of the IETF family. It would be very artificial to completely separate these discussions. They need to converge in the RFP anyway. Brian, As you know, but have not mentioned in your paragraph above, the IAB are officially appointed by the ISoC BoT && the IESG are officially appointed by the IAB. That is a significant fact, legally. Further, there are known cases during the last decade where a nominee from IETF NomCom was rejected as unsuitable by the appointing body -- so it IS more than a rubber stamp. My note specifically noted that the IAB, IETF, and IRTF are all affiliated, so I was not being obtuse here. I would call it the ISoc Family or Internet Family, however, not the IETF Family. IETF is very important, but it is not the only important member of the family. It WAS a very specific organisational design decision to have the IAB become responsible for the RFC Editor, and not the IETF nor the IESG, in the early 90s when the current organisational structure was created. There was an understanding then that the RFC Editor's role extends far beyond just publishing IETF-sponsored documents. I am concerned that this is not being acknowledged now. I would feel a lot better if there were more public acknowledgement that the RFC Editor's role extends far beyond the IETF-sponsored documents. 2. We have a specific segment on the independent submissions channel in the General Area open meeting in Dallas. I'm a defender of the existence of that channel, but that doesn't mean it is something that exists without being chartered, funded and accountable in some way. Unfortunately, the IETF meetings do not currently have much participation from non-IETF people who are involved in the Internet community. So that approach puts one segment of the community in the position of deciding what is best for another segment of the Internet community. It would be better if that open meeting were supplemented by IAB outreach -- and an IAB-sponsored (not IESG-sponsored) open call for input via email -- to the broader set of folks in the Internet community who aren't currently very involved in IETF meetings. The IAB (or possibly ISoc BoT, but more obviously IAB and not the IESG) ought to be running and driving any process to create or modify a formal RFC Editor charter, at least as long as we have the current organisational structure. That process should be as open as possible and should include specific outreach to members of the Internet R&E community, not primarily focused on IETF folks. Yours, Ran [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
Ran, RJ Atkinson wrote: There was an understanding then that the RFC Editor's role extends far beyond just publishing IETF-sponsored documents. I am concerned that this is not being acknowledged now. I would feel a lot better if there were more public acknowledgement that the RFC Editor's role extends far beyond the IETF-sponsored documents. It may have been true in 1993. At the moment, the part of the RFC Editor's role that extends beyond the IETF-sponsored documents is a small fraction (5%?) of the RFC Editor's output, and, I suspect, an even smaller fraction of the motivation for people and organizations to sponsor the RFC Editor; *all* of the funding for the RFC Editor comes through ISOC. At this moment, the RFC Editor is a function controlled, for better or worse, by the IETF. The IETF may choose to use the RFC process for other purposes than publishing IETF documents (and I think it should). But I do not believe that the concept of an RFC Editor that is independent of the IETF is a sustainable model at this time. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:43:35 -0500, RJ Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is a bug that the scope of the RFC Editor, which for decades > has been the broader Internet community, has above been limited > to just "the IETF community". For openers, the IRTF and IAB > are not properly part of the IETF, though they are obviously > related and co-operative. More broadly though, the RFC Editor > has handled Internet documents that had nothing to do with the > IETF for many years now. But there's an important caveat there: the IESG does check for conflicts between individual submissions to the RFC editor and IETF work -- see Section 3 of RFC 3932. I, for one, don't want to change that policy. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
At 22:29 17/03/2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Ran, RJ Atkinson wrote: There was an understanding then that the RFC Editor's role extends far beyond just publishing IETF-sponsored documents. I am concerned that this is not being acknowledged now. I would feel a lot better if there were more public acknowledgement that the RFC Editor's role extends far beyond the IETF-sponsored documents. It may have been true in 1993. At the moment, the part of the RFC Editor's role that extends beyond the IETF-sponsored documents is a small fraction (5%?) of the RFC Editor's output, and, I suspect, an even smaller fraction of the motivation for people and organizations to sponsor the RFC Editor; *all* of the funding for the RFC Editor comes through ISOC. At this moment, the RFC Editor is a function controlled, for better or worse, by the IETF. The IETF may choose to use the RFC process for other purposes than publishing IETF documents (and I think it should). But I do not believe that the concept of an RFC Editor that is independent of the IETF is a sustainable model at this time. Harald RFC 3935 claims leadership for the IETF in influencing "the way people design, use and manage the Internet". This is achieved through RFCs and through the IANA, in English. If the NTIA sells the IANA and the RFC Editor is independent from the IETF, this will put the IETF in competition for QA and ethic documents. Would it be bad?. Leadership would then swicth to RFC Editor and IANA and to those able to influence them outside of the IETF. You may recall that IANA has the full right today (MoU with IETF and ICANN) to publish other registries that IETF registries. But who would be globally authoritative? No one, and this would be confusion. This is the core of our contention over RFC 3066 Bis. You tried to impose the RFC Editor the positions of an external consortium to the IETF. You try to retain, for you and Members of that consortium, the IESG duties concerning its related IANA registries. I oppose you on the grounds of your doctrine. But I think that your approach is pragmatic and consistent with the today nature of the IANA, of the RFC Editor, and of the IETF. And I played on it to in fact win against you, partly at the IETF, mostly outside of it, where I wanted it. What is proposed today is actually to accept the consequences of this (and hopefully organising it), or to restaure the situation. The questions IMHO are: - should the IETF _try_ to influence, or should it _want_ to serve, those who design, use and manage the Internet? - should the IETF (which by essence is a protocol engineering/maintenance structure) focus on RFCs or keep consistently documented and updated Internet technology FAQs.This would make it a third equal level entity together with IANA and RFC Editor. A Trinity which may be efficient, but where the IETF still has the capacity to issue RFCs (as IAB, IESG, NSF, IGF, etc.) but where it would maintain the "last word" through its "HOW TO". What is the influence anyone can have with 4200 documents? jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
> But I do not believe that the concept of an RFC Editor that is > independent of the IETF is a sustainable model at this time. > > Harald I think a degree of independence is an important part of the checks and balances that have been established and is necessary to attract a person of the stature needed to continue the role of the RFC Series as the canonical documents that define the Internet. If we consolidate too much, we cease to be an association of individuals working together to produce a rough consensus and working code and begin to resemble a corporate hierarchy. Carl ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
> > Harald (who has only public knowledge at this point)
>
> There isn't much secret knowledge... but as an IAOC member,
> I feel we've been told by the community to seek multiple proposals
> when possible and appropriate, and in any case to be as transparent
> as possible in the process.
>
> Brian
Hi Brian -
I agree with the first part ("seek multiple proposals when possible
and appropriate"). However, we may disagree on the last part ("transparent
as possible"). My formulation would be "transparent" without the
qualifier. Transparent with a qualifier == opaque.
The more opaque the leadership is, the harder it is to keep keep a system
in place where anybody can participate, including participation by email
(one of our hallmarks).
At the beginning of this exchange, I asked a pretty simple set of
questions:
1. What does the RFC-Editor think of all this?
2. Might we be looking at a situation that would result in a sole-source
procurement again?
Given the many years of service by the RFC-Editor, I can't evaluate
the proposed actions in context, particularly if they weren't part of
the so-called strawman charter drafting process. And, it would be very
reassuring to hear a firm statement about the prospects for sole-source
procurement or other non-competitive reassignment of core functions.
Carl
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
Hi Carl, > I think a degree of independence is an important part of the > checks and balances that have been established and is necessary > to attract a person of the stature needed to continue the role > of the RFC Series as the canonical documents that define the Internet. I really have no problem with that independence being exercised for individual submissions that have gone through very limited or no peer review. But once peer review within the IETF, IESG, IRTF, or IAB has occurred, it's not for the RFC Editor to second guess technical decisions. I want an RFC Editor who can spot an inconsistency in a specification, ask a question, and use some judgment as to whether the matter needs to be reviewed by the relevant AD. That's a hard enough job that requires a broad knowledge of the protocol suite, top to bottom. > If we consolidate too much, we cease to be an association of > individuals working together to produce a rough consensus and > working code and begin to resemble a corporate hierarchy. > No knowledgeable individual would ever assert that the IETF is anywhere near as efficient as a corporate hierarchy. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
> > If we consolidate too much, we cease to be an association of > > individuals working together to produce a rough consensus and > > working code and begin to resemble a corporate hierarchy. > > > > No knowledgeable individual would ever assert that the IETF is anywhere > near as efficient as a corporate hierarchy. > > Eliot I'd say efficiency is not necessarily the metric. Contributions to science, engineering, infrastructure, and society are better metrics. In that sense, I'd say the IETF has been far more successful than any corporation, with the nice side benefit that a few corporations have benefited. But, that's not our mission. If I wanted to participate in a corporate hierachy, I'd do so in a job. Our mission is making a global Internet and, IMHO, that requires a different organizational structure. Carl ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
Carl, Carl Malamud wrote: Carl -- did you get the other message (the one with the timeline)? Yes, I did. Good - and I'd like to hear your comments on *that*. > I'm curious about: 1. the opinion from the RFC-Editor about this, in particular the charter. I assume you're asking this generally -- I would not presume to speak for the RFC Editor on that question. 2. what the IAB/IAOC is thinking ... this could be a sole source reassignment or a simple renewal. It is *not* news that there would be an RFP for this role in 2006 -- this is an attempt to get the plan out to the community for discussion in advance of execution. As Brian observed, the IAOC has understood the community to prefer solicitation for multiple bidders on any given function. That doesn't in any way preclude the possibility of the appointment going to our current RFC Editor crew, but it does mean that the IETF gets an opportunity to review the task, its expectations/requirements of it, and the relationship (contract) to carry out the work. Leslie. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
Suggestion? Are they independent submissions, or RFC Editor contributions? They are clearly not currently IAB, IETF or IRTF docs... Leslie. Scott Bradner wrote: The other "publication tracks" in the above is meant to be for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, . and 1 april RFCs? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
I think they are independent submissions (not generally written by teh RFC Editor staff) Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
On 17 mar 2006, at 19.56, Scott Bradner wrote: I think they are independent submissions (not generally written by teh RFC Editor staff) I agree, I also think they are individual submissions...but today RFC Editor select/approve which ones of the submitted ones are "good enough" to become april 1 RFC's...and I think that was your point Scott? Patrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:43:35 -0500, RJ Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Ran> It is a bug that the scope of the RFC Editor, which for decades Ran> has been the broader Internet community, has above been limited Ran> to just "the IETF community". For openers, the IRTF and IAB Ran> are not properly part of the IETF, though they are obviously Ran> related and co-operative. More broadly though, the RFC Editor Ran> has handled Internet documents that had nothing to do with the Ran> IETF for many years now. It would be a mistake to narrow the Ran> RFC Editor's scope as the above sentence appears to do. Right on! Ran> Proposed edit: Ran> s/of the IETF community/of the Internet community/ Absolutely. Ran> Similarly, it is a bug that the IETF process would govern the Ran> publication of non-IETF documents. The IETF process properly Ran> should govern how IETF generated documents should be handled Ran> for publication. However, the IETF processes ought not govern Ran> how IRTF, IAB, or other non-IETF documents are handled by the Ran> RFC Editor. Exactly. The RFC Editor's independence needs to be strengthened. Not weakened. The IETF is just one customer of the RFC Publication Service. RFC publication and the RFC Editor predate IETF/IESG/... Since establishment of the IETF, the main innovation in the Internet; the Web; was through a non-ietf RFC publication. It is a good thing that W3C has been using the RFC Publication Service. IETF should not be permitted to interfere with other uses of the RFC Publication Service. Allowing IETF/IESG/... to control the RFC Publication Service will be to the detriment of the broader Internet community. It should be expected of the RFC Editor to publish non-IETF RFCs despite objections from IETF/IESG. How often has this happened? I managed to do it, but it was very difficult. What is being proposed will make things worse. Shortly after this note, I will send two messages dating back to 1998-2000. One is with regard to a complaint against the RFC Editor for lacking a back bone and the IESG for being irresponsible in the case of RFC-2188. My recommendations for a remedy there are consistent with Ran's observations. I had to drive that complaint to be able to publish RFC-2524 despite IESG's objections. See: http://www.emsd.org/communicationRecord/rfc2524Publication/maillist.html for details. Has there been other cases where the RFC Editor chose to publish a RFC despite of IESG's don't publish recommendation? The second is the Policies and Procedures of the Free Protocols Foundation http://www.freeprotocols.org which propose a model for independent entities creating an environment for a market oriented protocol development process. IETF's culthood will be further strengthened, if the RFC Editor's independence was to be further weakened. ...Mohsen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
> I think that was your point Scott? I just wanted to be sure the list of RFC types was complete Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
Harald Alvestrand wrote: > Ran, > > RJ Atkinson wrote: > > There was an understanding then that the > > RFC Editor's role extends far beyond just publishing IETF-sponsored > > documents. I am concerned that this is not being acknowledged now. > > I would feel a lot better if there were more public acknowledgement > > that the RFC Editor's role extends far beyond the IETF-sponsored > > documents. > It may have been true in 1993. > > At the moment, the part of the RFC Editor's role that extends beyond the > IETF-sponsored documents is a small fraction (5%?) of the RFC Editor's > output, and, I suspect, an even smaller fraction of the motivation for > people and organizations to sponsor the RFC Editor; *all* of the funding > for the RFC Editor comes through ISOC. > > At this moment, the RFC Editor is a function controlled, for better or > worse, by the IETF. The IETF may choose to use the RFC process for other > purposes than publishing IETF documents (and I think it should). > > But I do not believe that the concept of an RFC Editor that is > independent of the IETF is a sustainable model at this time. Harald, The point is that the past IESG practice which has driven out those who would submit individual submissions, resulting in the current ratios, MUST NOT become the guide for what SHOULD happen going forward. The RFC editor role needs to be extricated from the overbearing IESG and returned to its independent role. Doing otherwise further fragments the community which will only lead to its downfall. Tony ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
Hi Tony, >The point is that the past IESG practice which has driven out those who >would submit individual submissions, resulting in the current ratios, MUST >NOT become the guide for what SHOULD happen going forward. > Actually, RFC 3932 already makes it quite clear what the role of the IETF and the IESG is in the individual submissions process. My understanding is that this makes the IESG much less in charge of what the individual submissions say than what the situation was before. Basically, there's only a check for conflict between the submission and IETF work. And obviously, non-IETF documents get a note which clearly explains that the document is not an output of the IETF. So, I would actually expect the situation has improved since the publication of RFC 3932. The rules seems clear and fair to me. Tony, if you have had bad experiences, have they been before or after RFC 3932? --Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
Ran, I could argue with quite a lot of what you say, but I won't. Cutting to the chase: RJ Atkinson wrote: ... The IAB (or possibly ISoc BoT, but more obviously IAB and not the IESG) ought to be running and driving any process to create or modify a formal RFC Editor charter, at least as long as we have the current organisational structure. The IAB is doing so. This thread was started by the IAB Chair and I'm an IAB member. That process should be as open as possible and should include specific outreach to members of the Internet R&E community, not primarily focused on IETF folks. I think it *should* be primarily focussed on the IETF and IRTF communities. Those are, objectively, the people who generate the overwhelming majority of RFCs. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
On 17 Mar 2006, at 22:53, Leslie Daigle wrote: Suggestion? Are they independent submissions, or RFC Editor contributions? They are clearly not currently IAB, IETF or IRTF docs... The crisp distinction between "independent submission" and "RFC Editor contribution" has so far eluded me. If there is a crisp definition for either or both, I would appreciate a pointer to an RFC explaining the distinction. As near as I can tell, these are the classes of not yet published documents seeking to become RFCs that exist today: IETF contribution IRTF contribution IAB contribution RFC Editor contribution Education, preferably with citations to RFC(s) would be very welcome. As I understand it, the 2nd case (IRTF contribution) is currently being discussed in an active I-D from the IRTF Chair. Thanks, Ran ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Transparency (Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter)
Carl Malamud wrote:
Hi Brian -
I agree with the first part ("seek multiple proposals when possible
and appropriate"). However, we may disagree on the last part ("transparent
as possible"). My formulation would be "transparent" without the
qualifier. Transparent with a qualifier == opaque.
The more opaque the leadership is, the harder it is to keep keep a system
in place where anybody can participate, including participation by email
(one of our hallmarks).
Carl,
I disagree with your assertion.
Transparency is an important tool - but it is a tool, not the mission.
There are instances where one has to choose between transparency and
other valuable properties, like making the process work at all, or
making it possible to make the process work in a manner acceptable to
the laws of the land.
I would definitely not want a stronger statement than "as transparent as
possible".
Harald
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Transparency (Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter)
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Carl Malamud wrote:
Hi Brian -
I agree with the first part ("seek multiple proposals when possible
and appropriate"). However, we may disagree on the last part
("transparent
as possible"). My formulation would be "transparent" without the
qualifier. Transparent with a qualifier == opaque.
The more opaque the leadership is, the harder it is to keep keep a
system in place where anybody can participate, including participation
by email (one of our hallmarks).
Carl,
I disagree with your assertion.
Transparency is an important tool - but it is a tool, not the mission.
There are instances where one has to choose between transparency and
other valuable properties, like making the process work at all, or
making it possible to make the process work in a manner acceptable to
the laws of the land.
I would definitely not want a stronger statement than "as transparent as
possible".
This is in fact exactly what BCP 101 calls for - see the first
paragraph of section 7.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
